August 31, 2015 Buildings Committee on Rental Inspections: Why Isn't My Friend Competent to Know It's Safe?

[XLFD]

A continuing theme has occurred at the meetings where the proposed Ludington rental inspection program has been discussed:  a public comment where questions are asked and good people (landlords, tenant, others) offer reasons why the program is flawed, redundant, or just violates laws of society and decency. 

This has been followed with the officials offering unsupported anecdotes, and simplistic easily refuted arguments on how this is needed for the public safety, why it won't raise rents, and why it will be better for all.  Concessions have been made on price of registration and inspection, without any rationale of why this wouldn't make the program costly for the rest of the community, who would have to subsidize the program. 

But this meeting that lasted just over 90 minutes would feature over an hour-long discussion among those officials present as to the minutia of what they would be looking into in the ordinance.  The meeting was held at the city council chambers, with the committee's members sitting around a U-shaped arrangement of tables opening towards chairs arranged for the public.  Starting at the top of the 'U' was Richard Wilson, a city attorney receiving over $200 per hour for attendance, faux Councilor Mike Krauch, City Manager John Shay, Councilor Richard Rathsack, Councilor (Chairman)Kathy Winczewski, Asst. City Manager Jackie Steckel, City Assessor Carol Ann Foote (who arrived late), and Building Inspector Tom Fulker at the opposite corner.  Fire Chief Jerry Funk sat at his usual post along the back wall.

Of the ten people present seven of them spoke, though the ones who didn't, which included myself, had already made points made at previous full council meetings-- this was just an 'advisory' meeting of the Buildings & Licenses Committee.  I was there effectively serving as a security guard:  to observe and report.

Public Comment:

Steve Vonpfahl, a homeowner in Ludington, started off by asking whether the city had a full list of what exactly they are looking at on inspections, before giving a respectfully-given negative review of the program.  It was a good question, but never one that was directly answered later on in the hour plus of discussion.  Of course, as per city policy, his questions and others were not responded to in the public comment period. 

Lori Dickenson, a homeowner in Ludington, talked of the destabilizing effect on the market that this program will have.  Already according to Lori, buyers are holding off purchasing properties in Ludington because of the proposal. 

Deb Mannikko, Ludington landlady/homeowner expressed her concern that local tenants being misled by the city saying that the cost of the program is under $3, when the effect will be much greater.  She related a long-term tenant coming to her worried that the rent would go up a couple of dollars, and speculated she would be affected quite a bit more.

Barry Schrader, Ludington tenant, stressed the program's potential impact on tenants, the inflationary impact on rents, and how it would lead to many having to move or live in tents.

Vicki Marie, a homeowner just outside the city limits, had the most fresh and poignant comment of the night, because it was so simple yet profound at once.  She said she owned her house but her friend was a tenant living a few blocks away, who would have her home inspected to see whether it was livable. 

She asked:  "Why isn't my friend considered competent to know whether it's safe?"   The mute officials just blankly stared, not affording her an answer, so she repeated herself-- not knowing the city's commitment towards not being responsive to anybody outside their official circle.

Nancy Mustaikis, Ludington landlady/homeowner, asked the committee whether there was truth to the rumor that the displaced tenants would be redirected to living into new apartments created by developers.  This rumor is somewhat supported by the admission by Joe Moloney that the City is looking for NEZ grants which encourage redevelopment of distressed pockets of a community to create new residences.  The record shows he also was noting these grants one of the last time rental inspections were being considered in 2006.

John Shay later dismissed this rumor during the meeting, saying there was no developer waiting in the wings for this to go through, but consider the source and the wording he used.

Marcia Bonnville, a homeowner in Ludington, asked the city to table the issue for later like they did with the proposed dog beach, she and other citizens were open to discuss the issue over the winter and consider less heavy-handed mandates. 

The Committee Deliberates

Touting their accomplishments of reducing fees and holding forums on the program, Chairman Winczewski touted the city's effort to make this into a responsive program, while effectively ignoring that the public continues in astonishing numbers to pan and question it at all opportunities.  Note a majority of the speakers at this basically meaningless committee meeting (71%) were not landlords of Ludington, so the resistance is a lot more than just self-interested lessors.

The city began by making a revision to the program by saying that if a tenant initiates an inspection after the unit has been previously found in compliance, they must pay for the inspection.  Even this amendment fails to take into account whether the reason for the past inspection failure (or the reason they request one) was due to the tenant's actions or inactions.  As noted at the last council meetings public comment, complaints like this generally only come when the tenant is being evicted or behind on rent. 

John Shay gave a report on his findings on research of other Michigan cities that have rental inspections.  His list included nine:  Coldwater, Hart, Midland, Alma, Jackson, Ann Arbor, Sturgis, Otsego, and Newaygo.  Eight of the cities inspect all units, some reward those units that passed a previous inspection by extending the period between re-inspections. 

I found no reference at the Hart website for rental inspections, however, the others seem to have the program.  Most notable of the ones he mentions is Jackson, a city whose residents have fought back via the courts to reign in an oppressive program.  As of the beginning of this year, there are three lawsuits pending against the city in regards to the rental inspection program: 

T & M Associates v City of Jackson, Case No. 14-2210-CZ is challenging advance billings by the City for inspection fees, months before an actual inspection takes place. It also challenges the right of the City to inspect a vacant house that is listed for sale with a realtor and thus no longer being used by the owner as a rental property. It also challenges the renewal registration fees when a house was previously registered and the registration fees paid at the time of the initial registration.

Then there is  Tulloch v City of Jackson, Case No. 14-003295-CZ and Eyde v. City of Jackson, which is explained in the article covering the reasonableness of the fees, and whether the fees are hidden taxes, which would require a vote by the electors of Jackson to be implemented.

All of these issues and more could come out in any lawsuit started against Ludington for its program, but Shay did not talk of Jackson's legal problems or either of the other city's problems, just told us how they run their ordinances, because Shay knows how we always love to emulate dysfunctional towns in southern Michigan.

Then came the bulk of roundtable U-table discussions with the building inspector chipping in.  Here's where I got confused.  Our county Building Inspector at times seemed to contradict himself and the written program when explaining what may be acceptable and what's not; describing what may make an inspection fail and what violations wouldn't.  Attorney Wilson was to write into the program that the inspector had some latitude and discretion in the inspections, but such revision only scared me further, since it takes some of the objectivity away and gives subjective control over to the inspector, who was definitely unsure as to the specific items the city wanted him to look for, particularly since "Existing Building" codes went counter to what the city's areas of enforcements were. 

For instance, the existence of knob and tube wiring in a very old house would pass using his words and rationale, even though the lack of a grounding conductor would make them less safe than modern wiring.  The hard standards already written into the checklist, would thus not be applicable, even though that's what it says is needed to pass inspection.  See some of the confusion?

As the meeting progressed, the chairman and others began using the more definitive word "when" instead of "if" when referring to the passing of this program, and never, as they have never before, discussed the necessity of it.  Mr. Krauch almost seems to take it personally when any part of this ordinance is amended or weakened.

They came to a consensus of not inspecting all units of a big apartment complex at once, wishing to do a third of them each year.  BI Fulker mentioned that he would expect that only the landlord would need to be with him when he inspects units, but nobody mentioned anything about their approval for their units to be entered.  Apparently, the city thinks that their threat of heavy fine and jail time will be enough to deprive the tenants of their constitutional right to be safe and secure in their homes.  Isn't the ideals behind rental inspections based on safety and security?

In the end, it was settled that Attorney Wilson would put in clauses for the building inspector to use his discretion when applicable and to clarify that inspections would be done on all units, irrespective of past success, so as to be fair.  Socialism and communism is fair too, I hear.

[Jasper]

What are "Building Inspector Tom Fulker's" credentials as far as electrical, plumbing, etc???  

Is Mr. Fulker licensed in all areas.  Wow, that is impressionable if he is a "jack of all trades."  

[Willy]

Thanks for this informative post X. Jasper, that is exactly what I am posting about.

How can a building inspector verify the safety or code compliance of electrical, plumbing and mechanical systems. Is the building inspector qualified via experience, a license or certificate to inspect anything other than the structural components of a building? What training does the building inspector have that qualifies him to inspect a furnace, water heater, venting system, service panel or anything related to the skilled trades. What's going to happen is the inspector, because of a lack of knowledge and experience, will be ordering landlords to hire licensed contractors to do the inspection that the building inspector is not qualified to perform. This can get quite expensive. Will the inspector be checking for properly grounded electrical outlets. What about proper electrical bonding? How will the building inspector determine the condition of a furnace heat exchanger? If the heat exchanger is defective or the seals are deteriorated, flue gases can seep into the duct system and be distributed through the dwelling. what qualifies the building inspector to check boiler systems? Other than chimneys how will the inspector determine if flue gases from gas burning appliances are being properly vented. Water heaters are notorious for having flue gases leaking into a dwelling from deteriorated baffles blocking the interior of the water heater or a dislodge draft hood or ill fitting burner access shield.  Who is going to be responsible if the inspector misses a code violation and someone is injured? The last thing I would want is an unqualified person inspecting my rental units. The City is opening a can of worms and the citizens of Ludington will again be paying for it.

Thanks for this informative post X. Jasper, that is exactly what I am posting about.

How can a building inspector verify the safety or code compliance of electrical, plumbing and mechanical systems. Is the building inspector qualified via experience, a license or certificate to inspect anything other than the structural components of a building? What training does the building inspector have that qualifies him to inspect a furnace, water heater, venting system, service panel or anything related to the skilled trades. What's going to happen is the inspector, because of a lack of knowledge and experience, will be ordering landlords to hire licensed contractors to do the inspection that the building inspector is not qualified to perform. This can get quite expensive. Will the inspector be checking for properly grounded electrical outlets. What about proper electrical bonding? How will the building inspector determine the condition of a furnace heat exchanger? If the heat exchanger is defective or the seals are deteriorated, flue gases can seep into the duct system and be distributed through the dwelling. what qualifies the building inspector to check boiler systems? Other than chimneys how will the inspector determine if flue gases from gas burning appliances are being properly vented. Water heaters are notorious for having flue gases leaking into a dwelling from deteriorated baffles blocking the interior of the water heater or a dislodge draft hood or ill fitting burner access shield.  Who is going to be responsible if the inspector misses a code violation and someone is injured? The last thing I would want is an unqualified person inspecting my rental units. The City is opening a can of worms and the citizens of Ludington will again be paying for it.

[XLFD]

An 'inspection' of the Mason County website shows that Tom Fulker is not a jack of all trades in the fields you mention.  Tim Taylor (wasn't he on Home Improvement?) handles electrical issues and Tom Story handles mechanical and plumbing issues in buildings, at least that's his story. 

Tom may see something he's unsure of and contact Tim and/or Tom, so not only does it get confusing, it can get expensive, but don't worry.  The landlords are going to pay these professionals for house calls whether they want to or not.

[Jasper]

Willy,

That was exactly my point...How can the building inspector "Tom Fulker" inspect all of these area's?  

What exactly are his credentials?  No way, no how can Mr.Fulker be knowledgeable in all of these areas!  

Further, how can the COL dictate these "inspections" on citizen's private properties?  

[XLFD]

In my version of the Constitution, the state is not allowed to enter your property without a warrant issued on probable cause of a crime.  Sure, there it is in Amendment Four:

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

In my version of the Constitution, there are ways for the people to enforce their rights when the state becomes oppressive, and tries to overstep their authority and infringe the safety and security of the free people of this nation, which includes our burgh of Ludington.  Sure, there it is in Amendment Two:

 

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

[Jasper]

Are all the condo's in Ludington going to be inspected?  

Many condo's are rented out during the off-season.  Are the older condo's which include the condo's located on the Buttersville Peninsula going to be inspected by the COL officials?

This BS of inspections appears to be a "class" conflict between the "poor" and the working class..vs. the wealthy in the COL!!! 

[XLFD]

It is my belief that traditional condo units are not 'rental dwelling units' as defined by the proposed Ludington RIP Ordinance.  If you time share your condo unit or otherwise allow others to use it through a rental or lease agreement, you then would be obligated to register and have your condo inspected. 

Jasper, I would actually state that this is perhaps the best opportunity to unite the two classes, for tenants and landlords, representing the poor and rich respectively, equally dislike the terms of this program.  The conflict that is going to be created by this ordinance is going to be between the citizens and the officials, and citizens can best win such a conflict by uniting against their public servants, and making them create sane policy or replace them in office.

[Jasper]

http://www.russianlife.com/blog/why-did-soviet-houses-all-look-the-...

The COL desires to have so much control, why not implement this?

[XLFD]

The update of the local master plans by our county and city planning commissions have been drawn up by Agenda 21-friendly LIAA and bankrolled by the Kresge Foundation, so don't be surprised if you left the area for 20 years (during a period when the locals remained complacent, while their council and planning commission rolled) and came back and saw that the underclass in Ludington were living in a mixture of Pineway style townhouses and Evergreen Trail style apartment complexes almost exclusively.  There wouldn't be anyplace else to live without owning the property.

[shinblind]

Well lets see there is a property downtown, the vacant lot with the Hanging Community Gardens of Ludington, the NAPA building and the City Fire Hall.  There was a pipe dream at one time to locate a hotel and convention center at this location but the realities are no hotel owner wants to locate their establishment on unstable land with views of Wesco,  a bank parking lot and the HOF factory.

But I bet this property would seems like the perfect location to Government Agencies waiting to toss around funds for low income subsidized housing.

After all, the ground work has already been laid; there is insufficient rental units in Ludington, especially ones that qualify as low income. . Ludington qualifies as a distress community. Add in that the local unemployment rate is low, everyone has a job, so you just hit the trifecta for having the government man show up with a suitcase full of taxpayer money to throw at the local rental housing shortage. 

 Picture this as a pipe dream for low income subsidized housing. Across the street are your cigarettes, beer and lotto. Across the Avenue is the market for package liquor and bridge card goods. In the neighborhood you have many restaurants and bars for those days when cooking might not be worth the effort. The only missing from this location is a pot dispensary & grow store. Far enough away from your church and schools to provide a haven for those restricted by local law from living elsewhere, not that that ever mattered before.

The only problem with this scenario is that it is right in the middle of downtown. But seeing how the locals are complacent, with a few new murals to cover up er  decorate the walls certainly we would stop noticing  after awhile. Then, finally, city officials and the unofficial powers behind the scene, could fulfill their dream of having a vibrant downtown.   

 

 

 

Prophecy

"...we effectively encourage the development of large multi-unit dwellings, significantly improving the tax base (if successful).  The increased tax load is not shouldered by the facility, but by the rest of the property owners in Ludington." (X)

[Jasper]

Don't think the COL would approve subsidized housing in that area.  Cannot have those type of people living next to all those condo's.  

The poor or elderly who utilize subsidized housing have to be housed on the outskirts of the Community hidden and tucked away from the "those that have."

[shinblind]

Jasper the corruption, stupidity and the vanity that these people display to the COL knows no bounds.

If the condo's are all sold what is to stop them from putting in subsidized rent buildings next door?   

If you have learned anything from this forum it should be that you should never underestimate what this city manager, mayor, and council are capable of doing and what their ulterior motives might be.